Trade-Policy Issues and Policy Options for Japan and the United States: Introduction and Overview

World Economy ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 669-676
Author(s):  
Gary R. Saxonhouse ◽  
Robert M. Stern
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Trade Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
Policy Issues

Fixing Farm Trade: Policy Options for the United States. A Council on Foreign Relations Book

1987 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 434
Author(s):  
William Diebold ◽  
Robert L. Paarlberg
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Trade Policy ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Options

scholarly journals Multilateral, Regional and Bilateral Trade‐Policy Options for the United States and Japan

World Economy ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 803-828 ◽  
Author(s):  
Drusilla K. Brown ◽  
Alan V. Deardorff ◽  
Robert M. Stern
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Trade Policy ◽  
Bilateral Trade ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Options

Aftermath and Legacy

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas A. Irwin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Growth ◽  
Trade Policy ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Current System ◽  
The United States ◽  
New Era ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
The World

This chapter assesses the aftermath and legacy of the Smoot–Hawley tariff. Smoot–Hawley gave congressional trade policy making a bad name that persists to this day. Those who enacted it promised economic growth and prosperity, but it was followed instead by plummeting exports and depression. The Tariff Act of 1930, the formal name of the Smoot–Hawley tariff, was the last general tariff revision undertaken by Congress. Four years later, Congress ushered in a new era of U.S. trade policy by delegating power to the president to negotiate agreements with other countries to reduce tariffs. This approach gave the United States its current system, embodied in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and its successor, the World Trade Organization. Yet the lessons of Smoot–Hawley continue to be debated whenever trade policy issues rise to the top of the national agenda.

Comparative analysis of the trade policy of Barack Obama and Donald Trump

2020 ◽  
pp. 59-71
Author(s):  
V. Iordanova ◽  
A. Ananev
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Trade Policy ◽  
World Economy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Entire World

The authors of this scientific article conducted a comparative analysis of the trade policy of US presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The article states that the tightening of trade policy by the current President is counterproductive and has a serious impact not only on the economic development of the United States, but also on the entire world economy as a whole.

scholarly journals The Trade and Environment Debate: Relevant for Southern Agriculture?

1994 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary A. Marchant ◽  
Nicole Ballenger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Environmental Standards ◽  
Trade And Environment ◽  
Agricultural Producers ◽  
International Debate ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
Environment Policy ◽  
Know How ◽  
Trade Measures

AbstractThis paper introduces and briefly discusses the economics of two important trade and environment policy issues--international harmonization of environmental standards and the use of trade measures for environmental purposes. Both issues are likely to generate lively international debate among environmentalists, industry representatives, and trade negotiators over the next few years. As the international community seeks new multilateral rules in these areas, agricultural producers will want to know how they will be affected. Thus, this paper also examines the potential impacts of environmental policy on the competitiveness of commodities unique to the Southern region of the United States.

Misusing historical analogies limits US policy options

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Middle East ◽  
The United States ◽  
Policy Options ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Decision To Leave ◽  
Us Military ◽  
The Future

Significance The Vietnam analogy implies that President Joe Biden’s decision to leave Afghanistan will have deeply negative consequences for the United States. However, Afghanistan is not Vietnam and the Biden withdrawal needs to be considered within the wider context of his administration’s review of US commitments abroad. Impacts The White House will be pressured to clarify the future of other US military commitments, particularly in Iraq. Biden will seek to reassure allies, particularly those in NATO, that his commitment to multilateralism will not diminish. Biden may seek an opportunity for a military show of force, possibly in the Middle East, to refute accusations of weakness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document